Asthma sufferer is 'too afraid to leave home' because of the abuse he suffers for not wearing a face mask - despite having an exemption
Lucas Cook suffers from asthma
An asthma sufferer living in coronavirus-stricken Melbourne claims he is constantly abused for not wearing a face mask in public despite carrying an exemption.
Lucas Cook said he is the victim of verbal abuse in the streets and at his workplace because people won't accept that he can't wear a face mask, which is mandatory under Victoria's lockdown restrictions.
The 20-year-old marketing entrepreneur suffers from asthma and would struggle to breathe if he were made to wear a face mask while out in public.
He told The Courier Mail he carries an exemption letter, as well as a photo which is recommended by the Asthma Foundation, and yet people still doubt the legitimacy of his condition.
'I was just walking to my car and this person's yelled at me: ''Put your f***ing mask on you d***head'',' he said of the most recent incident.
'I even showed him the photo the Asthma Foundation recommends you show when you have an exemption and he still said: ''I don't believe that s**t. Get f***ed. You're the reason why this is still going on''.'
People in Melbourne must wear face masks when leaving their home due to the coronavirus pandemic
Even at anti lockdown protests, like this one in Melbourne on September 19, people still wore masks while refusing to cooperate with the lockdown orders
Mr Cook said the altercation made him uncomfortable, but he chose to move past it until he was confronted again hours later at his Bourke St workplace.
He said a customer approached him and threatened to report him to management if he didn't start wearing a mask.
'Again I showed him my exemption and I clearly had two puffers and Ventolin on my desk. I just can't believe I copped abuse twice in one day for something I have no control over,' Mr Cook said.
'I have severe asthma, even wearing a scarf causes me to struggle breathing. I wish I could wear a mask so I can do everything I can to stop myself getting COVID-19, but I'd literally struggle to breathe.'
The 20-year-old, who founded digital marketing agency Co Media when he was just 17, said the incidents had left him 'so fearful... he was hesitant to go out'
Police are seen in large numbers patrolling the CBD during COVID-19 lockdown in Melbourne on September 21
Pictured: People wearing masks in front of Flinders St Station in Melbourne during the lockdown
Due to Mr Cook's condition, he is extra vulnerable to the deadly respiratory infection.
The 20-year-old, who founded digital marketing agency Co Media when he was just 17, said the incidents had left him 'so fearful... he was hesitant to go out'.
He encouraged people to consider medical exemptions before lashing out at strangers going without masks.
The abuse comes after multiple videos surfaced of protesters refusing to wear face masks and reciting speeches about why they would not conform to the policies.
Those arguing against the lockdown and mandatory face mask orders say they are a breach of their human rights.
Lucas Cook said he is the victim of verbal abuse in the streets and at his place of work because people won't accept that the can't wear a face mask, which is mandatory under Victoria's lockdown restrictions
As Freedom protests are held across Melbourne in response to the governments COVID-19 restrictions, Melbournians flocked in their thousands to the beach to protest their treatment
ANTI-MASKERS' DUBIOUS 'LEGAL' ARGUMENTS DEBUNKED
By Nic White for Daily Mail Australia
Groups opposing lockdowns, mask wearing, and police authority in general rely on a series of dubious arguments that are easily discredited:
Rules are 'directives' not 'laws'
A common theme to infuriating exchanges with police is that the public health orders are invalid because Parliament never approved them.
They claim such 'directives' can only be enforced by 'consent' and thus can be ignored at will.
However, the Public Health and Wellbeing Act of 2008 does give state governments and their chief health officers power to impose restrictions.
Section 200 of the act explicitly states they can can restrict movement or 'give any other direction that the authorised officer considers is reasonably necessary to protect public health'.
These powers kick in when a state of emergency is declared by the state government, which Premier Daniel Andrews did in Victoria on March 16.
Extra powers kick in when a state of emergency is declared by the state government, which Premier Daniel Andrews did in Victoria on March 16
Section 193 of the act allows for stay at home directions, which Deputy Chief Health Officer Finn Romanes enacted on July 22.
This directive also covers the wearing of face masks, as it states people can only leave their house while wearing one - exceptions notwithstanding.
Victoria also passed its own COVID-19 Omnibus (Emergency Measures) Act 2020 to strengthen these emergency powers.
State of emergency is invalid
Some conspiracy theorists claim the state of emergency shouldn't have been imposed in the first place.
They quote what they believe to be the conditions that must be established, including that a deadly pathogen must be present around the country.
As they deny the seriousness of Covid-19, they declare there is 'no deadly virus' in Australia.
The 167 Australians who have died from coronavirus, and their families, would beg to differ.
Police don't have authority to enforce orders
Many of the video feature coronavirus deniers refusing to answer police questions or give their details.
They make bizarre appeals to common law overriding state legislation, which are discussed at the end of this article.
Again, the Public Health and Wellbeing Act of 2008 comes into play as it empowers health officials to ask police for help enforcing directives.
Police officers can usually only ask for someone's details if they are committing a crime or are reasonably believed to be about to be.
But the Act extends this to investigating, eliminating or reducing the risk to public health.
Police can also detain anyone deemed a 'serious risk to public health', so long as they are warned that refusal to comply would lead to their arrest.
'We will not hesitate to issue fines to people who are obviously and blatantly showing a disregard for community safety by failing to wear a mask,' Victorian Police said on July 26.
'Police are working incredibly hard to keep the community safe and this type of behaviour is unacceptable and unnecessary.'
Police are violating human rights
Conspiracy theorists make frequent reference to the 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
This does not actually create any laws, it is just an undertaking to preserve and protect human rights around the world.
What rights citizens do have are in the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act.
This compels Parliament to balance any infringement on human rights, as laid down in the act, and produce a 'statement of compatibility'.
This balancing act is known as 'proportionality testing' and weighs, in this case, forcing people to wear masks with the threat of illness and death.
Parliament took this into account when passing the Public Health and Wellbeing Act of 2008, and health officials have done the same this year.
Victorian Chief Health Officer Brett Sutton even explained on Tuesday that human rights laws enshrined the right to exercise during lockdown.
'They are entitled to exercise within their home and their garden, ideally. People who have no garden and have no other option, have a right to exercise,' he said.
'The Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities is pretty clear that if you aren't giving people an option to exercise then you are effectively putting them in prison and that's not something that can be done for a case of coronavirus or for anyone else for that matter.'
Mr Andrews has very little time for human rights arguments, pointing out that not dying of coronavirus is a rather important right.
'Seriously, one more comment about human rights - honestly. It is about human life,' he said.
'If we continue with this stuff, standing in the car park of Bunnings reading whatever nonsense you have pulled up from some obscure website...'
Mr Andrews later apologised for losing his cool, but reiterated that police were doing what needed to be done.
' are trying to be as fair as they possibly can be,' he said, 'but if you're just making a selfish choice based on your belief, your personal belief, quoting something you've read on some website, it's not about human rights.'
Even Human Rights Law Centre executive director Hugh de Kretser isn't giving the conspiracy theorists any cover.
'Being required to wear a mask in public in Melbourne does not breach human rights,' he said.
'It's a very small limit on personal freedom for a very good reason; saving lives and protecting public health. There are sensible exceptions set out in the rules.
'Those who claim their rights are being breached are wrong.'
Businesses are discriminating by requiring masks before entry
Some anti-maskers have accused businesses of being in breach of anti-discrimination laws by refusing them entry.
Wesfarmers CEO Rob Scott said he stood behind the Bunnings workers in the video
The problem with this argument is that all the other regulations around mask wearing aren't even relevant because businesses have the right refuse entry at their discretion.
Rick Sarre, the Adjunct Professor of Law and Criminal Justice at the University of South Australia, says Australian businesses have the right to require customers to wear face masks.
'Australian law, quite simply, says that private landowners or occupiers can take reasonable steps to protect themselves, their employees and people on their property,' he wrote in The Conversation.
'So it would be legal for businesses - including cafes and supermarkets - to make it a condition of entry that customers wear a mask and sanitise their hands.'
Ms Nash claims she has a medical exemption to wearing a mask, which she never specified.
If she had produced proof of this, the whole situation could have been avoided.
Why these people are dangerous
Associate Professor Luke Beck Monash University's law faculty said the group appeared to be an offshoot of the sovereign citizen movement.
'These people make these kinds of pseudo-legal arguments, usually to try and get out of parking fines or paying council rates or things like that,' he told SBS.
'Some of these people think if you utter particular words or emphasise particular 'facts', it will somehow get you out of things.'
This is problematic for functioning society at the best of times, but University of Melbourne law Associate Professor Jonathan Liberman said it was downright dangerous during a pandemic.
'These people are trying to encourage others to do things that put people's health at risk and that will ultimately lead to these restrictions being in place for a lot longer,' he said.
'They are also promoting a rejection of the rule of law and a rejection of a harmonious society.'
ANTI-MASKERS' DUBIOUS 'LEGAL' ARGUMENTS DEBUNKED
By Nic White for Daily Mail Australia
Groups opposing lockdowns, mask wearing, and police authority in general rely on a series of dubious arguments that are easily discredited:
Rules are 'directives' not 'laws'
A common theme to infuriating exchanges with police is that the public health orders are invalid because Parliament never approved them.
They claim such 'directives' can only be enforced by 'consent' and thus can be ignored at will.
However, the Public Health and Wellbeing Act of 2008 does give state governments and their chief health officers power to impose restrictions.
Section 200 of the act explicitly states they can can restrict movement or 'give any other direction that the authorised officer considers is reasonably necessary to protect public health'.
These powers kick in when a state of emergency is declared by the state government, which Premier Daniel Andrews did in Victoria on March 16.
Extra powers kick in when a state of emergency is declared by the state government, which Premier Daniel Andrews did in Victoria on March 16
Section 193 of the act allows for stay at home directions, which Deputy Chief Health Officer Finn Romanes enacted on July 22.
This directive also covers the wearing of face masks, as it states people can only leave their house while wearing one - exceptions notwithstanding.
Victoria also passed its own COVID-19 Omnibus (Emergency Measures) Act 2020 to strengthen these emergency powers.
State of emergency is invalid
Some conspiracy theorists claim the state of emergency shouldn't have been imposed in the first place.
They quote what they believe to be the conditions that must be established, including that a deadly pathogen must be present around the country.
As they deny the seriousness of Covid-19, they declare there is 'no deadly virus' in Australia.
The 167 Australians who have died from coronavirus, and their families, would beg to differ.
Police don't have authority to enforce orders
Many of the video feature coronavirus deniers refusing to answer police questions or give their details.
They make bizarre appeals to common law overriding state legislation, which are discussed at the end of this article.
Again, the Public Health and Wellbeing Act of 2008 comes into play as it empowers health officials to ask police for help enforcing directives.
Police officers can usually only ask for someone's details if they are committing a crime or are reasonably believed to be about to be.
But the Act extends this to investigating, eliminating or reducing the risk to public health.
Police can also detain anyone deemed a 'serious risk to public health', so long as they are warned that refusal to comply would lead to their arrest.
'We will not hesitate to issue fines to people who are obviously and blatantly showing a disregard for community safety by failing to wear a mask,' Victorian Police said on July 26.
'Police are working incredibly hard to keep the community safe and this type of behaviour is unacceptable and unnecessary.'
Police are violating human rights
Conspiracy theorists make frequent reference to the 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
This does not actually create any laws, it is just an undertaking to preserve and protect human rights around the world.
What rights citizens do have are in the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act.
This compels Parliament to balance any infringement on human rights, as laid down in the act, and produce a 'statement of compatibility'.
This balancing act is known as 'proportionality testing' and weighs, in this case, forcing people to wear masks with the threat of illness and death.
Parliament took this into account when passing the Public Health and Wellbeing Act of 2008, and health officials have done the same this year.
Victorian Chief Health Officer Brett Sutton even explained on Tuesday that human rights laws enshrined the right to exercise during lockdown.
'They are entitled to exercise within their home and their garden, ideally. People who have no garden and have no other option, have a right to exercise,' he said.
'The Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities is pretty clear that if you aren't giving people an option to exercise then you are effectively putting them in prison and that's not something that can be done for a case of coronavirus or for anyone else for that matter.'
Mr Andrews has very little time for human rights arguments, pointing out that not dying of coronavirus is a rather important right.
'Seriously, one more comment about human rights - honestly. It is about human life,' he said.
'If we continue with this stuff, standing in the car park of Bunnings reading whatever nonsense you have pulled up from some obscure website...'
Mr Andrews later apologised for losing his cool, but reiterated that police were doing what needed to be done.
' are trying to be as fair as they possibly can be,' he said, 'but if you're just making a selfish choice based on your belief, your personal belief, quoting something you've read on some website, it's not about human rights.'
Even Human Rights Law Centre executive director Hugh de Kretser isn't giving the conspiracy theorists any cover.
'Being required to wear a mask in public in Melbourne does not breach human rights,' he said.
'It's a very small limit on personal freedom for a very good reason; saving lives and protecting public health. There are sensible exceptions set out in the rules.
'Those who claim their rights are being breached are wrong.'
Businesses are discriminating by requiring masks before entry
Some anti-maskers have accused businesses of being in breach of anti-discrimination laws by refusing them entry.
Wesfarmers CEO Rob Scott said he stood behind the Bunnings workers in the video
The problem with this argument is that all the other regulations around mask wearing aren't even relevant because businesses have the right refuse entry at their discretion.
Rick Sarre, the Adjunct Professor of Law and Criminal Justice at the University of South Australia, says Australian businesses have the right to require customers to wear face masks.
'Australian law, quite simply, says that private landowners or occupiers can take reasonable steps to protect themselves, their employees and people on their property,' he wrote in The Conversation.
'So it would be legal for businesses - including cafes and supermarkets - to make it a condition of entry that customers wear a mask and sanitise their hands.'
Ms Nash claims she has a medical exemption to wearing a mask, which she never specified.
If she had produced proof of this, the whole situation could have been avoided.
Why these people are dangerous
Associate Professor Luke Beck Monash University's law faculty said the group appeared to be an offshoot of the sovereign citizen movement.
'These people make these kinds of pseudo-legal arguments, usually to try and get out of parking fines or paying council rates or things like that,' he told SBS.
'Some of these people think if you utter particular words or emphasise particular 'facts', it will somehow get you out of things.'
This is problematic for functioning society at the best of times, but University of Melbourne law Associate Professor Jonathan Liberman said it was downright dangerous during a pandemic.
'These people are trying to encourage others to do things that put people's health at risk and that will ultimately lead to these restrictions being in place for a lot longer,' he said.
'They are also promoting a rejection of the rule of law and a rejection of a harmonious society.'